Akbar, the Great
(Know how great he is!)
https://ramamohanraocheruku.blogspot.com/2014/04/akbar-great-introduction-history-of.html
Without an accurate history, Hindustan cannot develop on its correct
identity. And without a clearly defined identity, Indians will continue to
flounder. Defalsification of Indian history is the first step for our
renaissance. --- Dr. Subramanian Swamy
Despite their illustrious ancestors, the Mughals began humbly. When
the great Mughal Conqueror, Babur the Tiger, came to power in 1483, he ruled
over a very small kingdom in Turkestan. With the smallest of armies, he managed
to conquer first Afghanistan and then the Delhi sultanate and all of Hindustan.
Faced with overwhelming odds (when he fought the Delhi Sultan he was
outnumbered ten to one), he overcame his enemies with a new technology:
firearms. For this reason, Western historians have dubbed the Mughal Empire,
the first gunpowder empire.
History of India has witnessed innumerable invasions by hordes of
armed marauders coming in from the west, perhaps attracted to the riches and wealth
India then possessed. Apart from looting of wealth and destruction of property,
the 'aliens' who remained, who committed grave atrocities against the local
populace, and themselves, wallowing in immoral and unethical behaviour? Akbar
is not any exception to it.
Akbar, the third generation Mughal emperor who lived from 1542-1605
A.D, has been extolled as the greatest of all Mughals, righteous in deed and
noble in character. He is praised to be the only and truly secular Emperor of
the times, very caring and protective of his subjects. However, assessment and
analysis of contemporary nothings expose this unjustified edification of Akbar
and provides a remarkably different picture of Akbar's personality.
The following is not a comprehensive report on Akbar's reign, but an
attempt to provide a summary to the reader, on the real nature of Akbar based
on contemporary records. It is hoped that the reader will make a judgement on
Akbar's "greatness" based on the information provided below.
Akbar's ancestors were barbarous and vicious, and so were his
descendants down the line. Akbar was born and brought up in an illiterate and
foul atmosphere characterized by excessive drinking, womanizing and drug
addiction. Vincent Smith in "Akbar - The Great Mogul" (p.294) writes,
“Intemperance was the besetting sin of the Timor old royal family, as it was of
many other Muslim ruling houses. Babur (was) an elegant toper ... Humayun made
himself stupid with opium ... Akbar permitted himself the practices of both vices...
Akbar's two sons died in early manhood from chronic alcoholism, and their elder
brother was saved from the same fate by a strong constitution, and not by
virtue." With such an atmosphere to nourish Akbar's thoughts, it is rather
unusual for Akbar to become "divine incarnate"!
Col. Tod writes that Babur had assumed the title 'Ghazi' for the
tower of skulls he had erected with the skulls of those who were slayed in the
battle of Fatehpur Sikri with Rana Sanga.(page 246).
Akbar seems to have preserved this "great" legacy of
erecting minarets as is obvious from the accounts of battles he fought.
Humayun, the son of Babar, was even more degenerate and cruel than
his father. Smith (p.20), says, “(Humayun) had little concerns for his brother
Kamran's sufferings. Some lemon juice and salt was put into his eyes... After
sometime he was put on horseback." He is also known to have married a 14
year old Hamida Begum by force. Humayun was also a slave to opium habit,
engaged in excessive alcohol consumption and a lecherous degenerate when it
came to women (Shelat, p.27). The cruelties perpetrated by of Akbar's
descendants (Jehangir, Shahjahan, Aurangzeb, etc.) are not entirely different
from those of his ancestors. Having brought up in the company and under the
guidance of a lineage of drug addicts, drunkards and sadists, it is rather anomalous
that Akbar held such a gentle and noble character. Akbar possessed an
inordinate lust for women, just like his ancestors and predecessors. One of
Akbar's motives during his wars of aggression against various rulers was to
appropriate their women, daughters and sisters. The Rajput women of Chittor preferred
"Jauhar" (immolation) than to be captured and disrespectfully treated
as servants and prostitutes in Akbar's harem. On his licentious relations with
women, Smith refers to a contemporary Jesuits testimony (p.81) supports the
fact that drinking and engaging in debauched sexual activities was inherited by
Akbar from his ancestors.
To be continued………
Akbar, the Great - 2nd Part
(Know how great he is!)
Abul Fazal in Ain-i-Akbari (Bochmann, V.1, p.276), confirms the state
of affairs during Akbar's rule, where alcoholism, sodomy, prostitution and
murderous assaults were permitted by the king himself. The conditions of the
civic life during Akbar's life is shocking! Sodomy (Originally, the term sodomy
was commonly restricted to anal sex, and is derived from the story of Sodom and
Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the book of genesis in the Bible). Though
perhaps Akbar did not engage in sodomy like his ancisters, he
"allowed" it to be practiced by his servants, courtiers and sycophants.
Abul Fazal in Ain-e-Akbari provides accounts of some such acts which are too
disgusting to even mention.
That Akbar remained monogamous throughout his life is indeed history
falsified myth. Again quoting V. Smith (pp.47),".. Akbar, throughout his
life, allowed himself ample latitude in the matter of wives and
concubines!" and further, “Akbar had introduced a whole host of Hindu, the
daughters of eminent Hindu Rajah's into his harem." (pp.212). Inspite of such disgusting and lewd personal
affairs, inducting women of abducted or killed Hindu warriors into his harem as
slaves and prostitutes, it is bewildering that Akbar is hailed as a righteous
and noble emperor.
One incident pertaining to Akbar I bring to you here under.
Akbar was a coward and pervert man and used to do bad with ladies but
only his good habits were mentioned in the text books. But only few people know
about his dark side which was only known by his wife and courtiers but then
also still kept a secret. Kiran Devi daughter of Rana Pratap’s brother Shakti
Singh, attacked him because she could no longer tolerate the dark side of Akbar.
Whenever she went to Mena Bazar which was exclusively meant for ladies, he used
to disguise as a lady and tease her. At last she attacked him and then made him
beg for his life. As a Rajput Stree she pardoned him.
Here I would like to bring another
incident that says about Akbar.
Sultan Baz Bahadur was the last
independent ruler of Mandu of Madhya Pradesh. Once when he was on a hunting
trip, he chanced upon a shepherdess frolicking and singing with her friends.
Baz Bahadur who loved music was immediately smitten by the singer's beauty and
her melodious voice. He begged Rupmati to accompany him to his capital.
Roopmati agreed to go to Mandu on the condition that she would live in a palace
within sight of her beloved river Narmada (Rewa is another name). Thus was
built the Rewa Kund at Mandu.
Tragically, the romance between the
sultan and the shepherdess was doomed as Akbar came to know about Rupmati’s beauty
and her mellifluous voice. The great
Mughal Akbar decided to invade Mandu and sent Adham Khan to capture Mandu. Baz
Bahadur who challenged him with his small army was no match for the great
Mughal army. Mandu fell easily. Adham Khan cast his eye on the beautiful Rani
Roopmati. Sensing her fate, Roopmati poisoned herself and avoided capture, thus
ending this magical love story that inspired poetry and folklore.
Curtesy: https://www.mptourism.com/places-to-visit-in-mandu.html
The personality and nature of Akbar has been nicely summed up by the
Editor of ‘Father Monserrate's Commentaries’. The editor's introduction states,
"In the long line of Indian sovereigns, the towering personalities of Asoka
and Akbar (because of his dread) stand high above the rest... Akbar's greed for
conquest and glory and his lack of sincerity form a marked contrast to Asoka’s
paternal rule, genuine self-control and spiritual ambition. Akbar's wars were
those of a true descendent of Timor, and had all the gruesome associations
which this fact implies."
"The old notion that Akbar's was a near approximation to Plato's
philosopher king has been dissipated by modern researches. His character with
its mixture of ambition and cunning has now been laid bare. He has been rightly
compared to a pike in a pond preying upon his weaker neighbors. Akbar was
unable to give up his polygamous habits, for no importance needs to be attached
to the bazaar gossip of the time that he once intended to distribute his wives
among his grandees (a Spanish or Portuguese nobleman of the first rank but here
in this case to his own generals standing first in the order, in this case his
generals of first order)
Vincent Smith (p.50) says that in a privately executing Kamran's son
[namely, Akbar's own cousin] at Gwalior in 1565, ".. Akbar set an evil
example, initiated on a large scale by his descendants Shahjahan and
Aurangzeb." He constructed a Mumbar
(a pulpit for Islamic preachers) for the Koran from the altar of Eklingji (the
deity of the Rajput warriors)." (Todd, p.259) Not only that he forcibly
annihilated innumerable humans, he also had no respect for temples and deities
and willingly indulged in destruction of such places of worship.
To be continued……..
Akbar, the Great 3rd Part
(Know how great he is!)
Akbar refused to strike a helpless and injured prisoner seems to be
utterly false. At a tender age of 14, Akbar slashed the neck of his Hindu
adversary Hemu brought before him unconscious and bleeding. After the fateful
battle of Panipat, the unconscious Hemu was brought before Akbar who smote Hemu
on his neck with his scimitar, and in Akbar's presence, the bystanders also
plunged their swords into the bleeding corpse. Hemu's head was sent to Kabul
and his trunk was gibbeted at one of the gates of Delhi. After victorious
forces pushing south from Panipat after that great victory (at Panipat), writes
Smith (pp.29), "marched straight into Delhi, which opened its gates to
Akbar, who made his entry in state. Agra was also passed into his possession.
In accordance with the ghastly custom of the times, a tower was built with the
heads of the slain. Immense treasures were taken with the family of Hemu whose
aged father was executed." This "tower of heads" tradition and
ceremony was religiously preserved by the "magnanimous" Akbar.
Akbar is not either different from Babar or Aurangajeb.
His ego prompted him always to defeat Rana Pratap and capture Mewar, after capturing Chittor.
During a battle, with Akbar, Jhala Maan who had a close resemblance to Maharana Pratap wore the crown of Maharana Pratap and the Mughals at the instence of Akbar, attacked Jhala Maan misunderstanding him to be Maharana Pratap and in that battle, Jhala Maan was killed. Jhala Maan was the one himself who advised Pratap to leave the battlefield.
It was Akbar’s dream to capture Maharana Pratap but he couldn’t succeed in his lifetime. Even after all the Rajput dynasties which included Gogunda, and Bundi had surrendered to Akbar, Pratap never bowed to Akbar.
It was his dream to free Chittor and so he made a pledge that he would eat in a leaf plate and sleep on a bed of straws until he doesn’t win Chittor back. Even today some Rajputs place a leaf under their plate and straw under their bed in the honor of the legendary Maharana Pratap.
After the capture of Chittor, says Smith (p.64), "... Akbar exasperated by the obstinate resistance offered t his arms, treated the town
and garrison with merciless severity. The 8000 strong Rajput garrison having
been zealously helped during the siege by 40,000 peasants, the emperor ordered
a general massacre which resulted in the death of 30,000 (even though the
struggle was over). Many were made prisoners." Such terrible was his
humanitarian outlook as towards his defeated adversaries. L.M. Shelat writes
more on this incident that (pp.105), "neither the temples nor the towers
escaped the vandalism of the invaders". There were events where intolerant
Akbar ordered the excision of one man's tongue, trampling opponents to death by
elephants and other private or informal executions and associations. After a
victorious battle at Ahmadabad, in accordance with the gruesome custom at the
times, a pyramid was built with the heads of the rebels, more than 2000 in
number. At one time, enraged on seeing a hapless lamplighter coiled up near his
couch, Akbar order that the servant be shredded into thousand pieces! What else
can one expect the barbaric and unscrupulous Akbar?
Akbar's reign of horrid cruelties includes the following incident
which must be considered the jewel in the crown of horrid pastimes. Vincent
Smith writes (pp.56) "An extraordinary incident which occurred in April
while the royal camp was at Sthaneswar, the famous Hindu place of pilgrimage to
the north of Delhi, throws a rather unpleasant light on Akbar's character...
The Sannyasins assembled at the holy tank were divided into two parties, called
the Kurs and Puris. The leader of the latter complained to the King that that
the Kurs had unjustly occupied the accustomed sitting place of the Puris who
were thus debarred from collecting the pilgrims' alms." They were asked to
decide the issue by mortal combat. They were drawn up on either side with their
arms drawn. In the fight that ensued the combatants used swords, bows, arrows and
stones. "Akbar seeing that the Puris were outnumbered gave a signal to
some of his savage followers to help the weaker party." In this fight
between the two Hindu sanyasin sects Akbar saw to it that both were ultimately
annihilated by his own fierce solders. The chronicler unctuously adds that
Akbar was highly delighted with this sport. How can an emperor, so noble and
great, can have a sadist mind that relishes and obtains "delight" by
ordaining and watching two Hindu sanyasin sects being slaughtered?
Killing and massacring others' was regarded as a
pastime and diversion by a bereaved Akbar. The chronicler Ferishta notes
(Briggs, p.171), "Prince Murad Mirza falling dangerously ill (May 1599)
was buried at Shapoor. The corpse was afterwards removed to Agra, and laid by
the side of Humayun, the prince's grandfather. The kings grief for the death of
his son increased his desire for the conquering the Deccan, as a means of
diverting the mind." Could there exist a more sinister kind of sadism?
contd.............
Akbar, the Great 4th Part
(Know how great he is!)
Akbar's cruelty towards the Hindu women kidnapped and shut up in his
harem were stagerring and his much vaunted marraiges said to have been
contracted for communal integration and harmony were nothing but outrageous
kidnappings brought about with the force of arms. This is apparent from Akbar's
marriage to Raja Bharmal's daughter that occured at Deosa "when people
Deosa and other places on Akbar's route fled away on his approach." (Shrivastava,
pp.63). Why would the people flee in terror if at all Akbar was
"visiting" Raja Bharmal and that the marraige was congenial and in
consent with the bride's party? Far from abolishing the practice of Sati, Akbar
invited the Jesuit priests to watch the "considerble fun" and
supporting it by his weighty judgement and explicit approbation. (Monserrate's
Commentary, pp.61).
Many more horrified facts on Akbar's rule can be added. Even the
infamous tax, which supposedly was abolished by Akbar, was continually being
collected in Akbar's reign. A number of persons were secretly executed on
Akbar's orders and a list of such people is provided by Vincent Smith. Akbar's
reign was nothing but terror, torture and tyranny for his subjects and
courtiers as is obvious from the quoted events. There are numerous other
occasions and recorded events from Akbar's life that personifies him as a devil
incarnate, contrary to what has been propagated.
Akbar was born a Muslim, lived like a Muslim and died as a Muslim;
that too a very fanatic one.
Xavier, a Jesuit in Akbar's court, gives a typical instance of
Akbar's perfidy in making people drink water in which his feet had been washed.
Xavier writes, says Smith (p.189), Akbar posed “as a Prophet, wishing it to be
understood that he works miracles through healing the sick by means of the
water in which he washed the feet." Badauni says that this [the above]
special type of humiliation was reserved by Akbar only for Hindus. Says
Badayuni, "... if other than Hindus came, and wished to become disciples
at any sacrifice, His Majesty reproved them." Where was his broadminded
and tolerant nature then?
To be continued...........
Akbar, the Great 5th and last Part
(Know how great he is!)
The Hindus were treated as thirdclass citizens in Akbar's reign is
evident from the Ain-i-Akbari. Abul Fazal writes, "... he [Husayn Khan,
Akbar's governor at Lahore] ordered the Hindus as unbelievers to wear a patch
(Tukra) near the shoulders, and thus got the nick name of Tukriya
(patcher)." (Bochmann. p.403) The patch was obviously to mark the
"unbelievers" out as pariahs for providing special degrading
treatment.
The holy Hindu cities of Prayag and Banaras, writes Vincent Smith
(p.58), were plundered by Akbar because their residents were rash enough to
close their gates! No wonder Prayag of today has no ancient monuments --
whatever remain are a rubble! It is rather obvious that Akbar had no respect
and reverence for cities considered holy by Hindus, let alone esteem for human
life and property. Also, it is evident from this instance that Akbar's subjects
were horrified and scared upon the arrival of their king into their city. If at
all Akbar was so magnanimous, why then did not the people come forward and
greet him?
Monserrate, a contemporary of Akbar, writes (p.27), "The
religious zeal of the Musalmans has destroyed all the idol temples which used
to be numerous. In place of Hindu temples, countless tombs and little shrines
of wicked and worthless Musalmans have been erected in which these men are
worshipped with vain superstition as though they were saints." Akbar was
so penurious and retentive of money that .." he considered himself to be
heir of all his subjects, and ruthlessly seized the property of every deceased
whose family had to make a fresh start ... Akbar was a hard headed man of
business, not a sentimental philanthropist, and his whole policy was directed
principally to the acquisition of power and riches. All the arrangements about
Jagirs, branding (horses) etc., were devised for the one purpose namely, the
enhancement of the power, glory and riches of the crown." (Smith, p.263).
The latter statement indicates what a marvelous and altruist administrator
Akbar was!
Akbar's lawless and rapacious rule also led to horrible famines --
Delhi was devastated and the mortality was enormous. Gujrat, one of the richest
provinces in India, suffered severly for 6 months in 1573-74. Smith writes,
"The famine which began in 1595 and lasted three or four years until 1598 equaled
in its horrors the accession year and excelled the visitation by reason of its
longer duration.
Referring to the Gujarat famine, Dr. Shrivastava (p.169) writes,
"... the famine was not caused by drought or the failure of seasonal
rains, but was due to the destruction wrought by prolonged wars and rebellions,
constant marching and counter-marching of troops, and killing men on a large
scale, and the breakdown of administrative machinery and the economic system
... The mortality rate was so high that on an average 100 cart-loads of dead
bodies were taken out for burial in the city of Ahmadabad alone .."
Smith asserts that epidemics and inundation often marred Akbar's
reign, and at the time of such distress, writes Badayuni (Bochmann, p.391),
parents were allowed to sell their children. Utter lawlessness and stately
permissions to carry out immoral activities seem to the norm during Akbar's
reign.
Noble in character that Akbar was that his generals and courtiers,
even including his son Jehangir, revolted against him. Interminable wars and
unending rebellions were continuing somewhere or the other in his so-called
peaceful reign. Dr. Shrivastava nicely summarizes (p.381), "The vast
empire hardly ever enjoyed complete immunity from some kind of disturbance and
rebellion."
With constant famines, wars and revolts occurring the Akbar's era,
where then did he get the time and money to construct buildings of magnificence
and grandeur, like the Fort at Agra? Akbar is said to have built several forts
and palaces and founded many townships. However, as seen earlier, Akbar simply
renamed pre-existing townships of Hindu origin and claimed to have been built
by himself.
One such unfortunate township is that of Fatehpur Sikri. It has a massive
defensive wall around it, enclosing Redstone gateways and a majestic palace
complex, explicitly in the Rajput style. It is the creation of these buildings
and gateways that are accredited to Akbar. There are 15th century references
suffice to prove the existence of Fatehpur Sikri before even Akbar was born,
and that the beautiful buildings were not built by Akbar but the Rajputs.
The Red Fort of Agra, also originally of Rajput design and
construction, was usurped by Akbar. However, an account says that Akbar
demolished the fort in 1565, apparently for no reason, and constructed another
in its place. Surprisingly, in 1566, Adham Khan was punished by being thrown
down from the second story of the royal apartments inside the fort! Keene
(Handbook for Visitor's to Agra and Its Neighborhood) quotes this rumor and
casts a very pertinent doubt that is the fort was demolished in 1565, how is it
possible for Akbar to stay there in 1566 and a man was flung down from the
second story? Keene adds that even the foundation of the extensive fort could
not have been complete within three years. Neither did Akbar demolish the fort,
nor did he rebuild an entire structure. He simply commandeered the fort from
its original inhabitants, and claimed to have been built by him." The
fraudulent claims that Akbar designed and built these monuments “are fabricated
stories written by Muslim chroniclers toadying for Akbar's favour.
Akbar's life has been full of acts of cruelties, barbaric behaviour, and
lust for women and wine. Even assuming that such miracles can occur,
unfortunately, Akbar's reign and state of administration contradict such an
assumption and one is compelled to conclude that Akbar was no better a monarch
than his forefathers. Apparently from what was described above, Akbar has been
given unnecessary credit of being tolerant, secular and an altruist king. His
sycophantic courtiers, including the court chroniclers, allotted to him all the
praises he desired. Upon some inspection, the nine-gem story of Akbar's court becomes
a sheer invention of court flatterers, who sought Akbar's favour for
self-aggrandizement. Akbar's recalcitrance and callousness in the matters of
caring for his subjects and domain, led to untold misery in the form of famines
and pestilence. Wars, revolts and rebellions constantly erupted concluding is
mass mayhem and killings. There was no tranquility nor peace in Akbar's reign,
let alone material and spiritual prosperity. That an avaricious miser Akbar
was, it is rather unbelievable for him to have spent on creating expensive
buildings and mansions. He was no better than other Muslim monarchs, constantly
on the prey to usurp power and pelf by whatever means they could. Morality and
humanitarian principles took a back seat to self-aggrandizement and lechery.
Even after exercising numerous abductions, kidnappings, murders Akbar have been
referred to as noble, compassionate and great. Even though religious fanaticism
never decreased in his reign, nay, was sponsored by Akbar himself, he has been
termed as a secular, broadminded person. Such blunders of a serious magnitude
have been committed by historians reconstructing and writing accounts on Indian
history.
It may be worthwhile to research and present the "true"
story of Akbar exposing to the world the true nature of Akbar and his
personality. The Mughal rule in India was indeed very ruthless and full of difficult
times for the people and the country; truly a "dark" age.
Courtesy: hindunet.org
Swasthi.
